This is the Environment Show. It's about our stewardship of the Earth and the beauty
and mystery of life in all its forms. I'm Peter Burley.
Coming up, are the Great Lakes for sale? A private Canadian firm is trying to sell the
water overseas and there's not much to stop them. We mourn the passing of Marjorie's
Stoneman Douglas, the patron saint of the Florida Everglades who inspired the movement to
save America's most significant wetlands. Chipmilling and strip mining have caused havoc
in the Cumberland Mountains of Tennessee. We meet some folks who are trying to do something
about it. And on the Earth calendar, bowhead whales are rounding the top of Alaska and
heading into the Arctic Ocean. These stories and more coming up on the Environment Show.
You're listening to the Environment Show. I'm Peter Burley. A private Canadian company
created an international uproar recently when it was permitted to withdraw thousands of gallons
of water from Lake Superior. The company planned to sell the water in Asia. Its program is currently
unhold, but the fact that it received a permit has environmentalists and lawmakers concerned
over how well the Great Lakes are being managed. The Environment Show's Stephen Westcott has the
story. Earlier this year, Nova Group, a company based in Sul-Saint-Marie, Ontario, applied for a
permit to withdraw some 420,000 gallons of water a day from Lake Superior. Ontario's Ministry of
the Environment approved the permit, but it was withdrawn after politicians and environmentalists
in both countries voiced opposition to the plan. The Great Lakes Commission was among the
groups concerned about the permitting process and Nova Group's intentions. That organization
represents the eight Great Lakes states here in the US. Executive Director Dr. Michael Donihue says
while water diversion plans in the Great Lakes aren't new, this plan posed three big issues.
First of all, with the legal precedent, the notion of a private sector entity
accessing a public resource and selling it for profit overseas was very troubling. Secondly,
we were concerned with the fact that perhaps the cumulative impacts of such a diversion proposal
weren't considered. For example, the permit that the Nova Group received if fully used would not
have a measurable impact on water quantity or quality, but if this venture was determined to be
commercially viable and this became a budding industry in the Great Lakes, it could indeed have
ecological and economic impacts. And then thirdly and perhaps most importantly, we were very
concerned that there was no apparent consultation whatsoever between the province of Ontario and
the Great Lakes states or any other Great Lakes jurisdictions about this proposal.
The 1985 Great Lakes Charter, a good faith agreement between the two countries, says the states
and provinces will consult one another before approving a diversion plan of more than 5 million
gallons of water a day. The Nova Groups plan fell beneath that number, which led the Ministry
of the Environment to believe it did not have to consult other states or provinces. Sarah Miller,
co-ordinator with the Canadian Environmental Law Association in Toronto, says no environmental
impact studies were ever conducted by the Ministry. In addition, she says the Ministry felt it
had no jurisdiction over the exportation of water overseas, believing that was the responsibility
of the Canadian government. Overall, Miller believes Canada needs to fix the loopholes that allowed
Nova Group to receive the permit. The Canadian federal government has fewer instruments to protect
the Great Lakes than the Americans, federal government. In the states, there is a water resources
development act that gives the federal government veto power over any withdrawal or diversion from
the Great Lakes that might be approved by Great Lakes state, but our federal government has not
actually legislated anything that gives them comparable powers. The International Boundary Treaty of
1909 was the first by national agreement designed to manage the Great Lakes. It was established to
make sure neither the U.S. or Canada take actions that affect levels and flows of the Great Lakes.
That treaty also created the International Joint Commission, or IJC. The commission, which has
representatives from both countries, is in charge of preventing disputes along the boundaries. It also
makes recommendations to the respective governments. IJC chair of the U.S. section, Tom Baldini, would not
comment on whether Canada needs to toughen its part in managing the Great Lakes, adding that the
relationship between Canada's federal government and provinces differs from the states along the
five lakes and the U.S. government. Moreover, he rejects assertions by critics who say the IJC is a
paper tiger. Baldini says in some instances, the governments have even given the commission rule-making
authority. Being advisory rather than making rules gives us greater ability to say what really has to
be set. Because if you're starting to have to say things which you become worried about how it's
going to become implemented, you then begin to take on a political posture. I don't criticize that,
okay? But we usually see ourself as an organization that says this is the right thing to do for this
particular resource. And that's what you need about the IJC. As a commissioner, I'm not supposed to
recommend what's necessarily in the best interest of the United States or the best interest of Canada.
We're supposed to recommend what's in the best interest of the resources for the people.
In recent years, Baldini says the IJC has recommended that both the Canadian and U.S.
governments begin talks about how to better manage the Great Lakes in the 21st century,
something which has yet to occur. It also recommended the creation of a database that would help
scientists and others monitor the lakes. Both governments haven't acted on this proposal either.
In the meantime, the Nova Group's action shows there is little to stop the Great Lakes water from
being sold commercially. Congressman Bart Stupac, Democrat from Michigan's first district,
sums up the concerns he and others have. Well, we have to keep in mind there's between United
States and Canada. There's 41 million people who depend on this water. And this water,
while it's a massive and size, 20th of all the world's fresh water, 20% of it, is found in the Great
Lakes. But 41 million people depend upon it. It is really a very fragile ecosystem.
If you start shipping it in and out through tankers and everything else,
not only do you have water level concerns, you have an ecosystem concern, you also have environmental
concerns. For the Environment Show, I'm Stephen Westcott.
We more in the passing of a great American environmentalist, Marjorie Stoneman Douglas,
who has died at the age of 108. Miss Douglas coined the phrase River of Grass as a description
for the Florida Everglades. She spent more than half her life as the most dedicated and effective
protector of America's most significant wetland. When Miss Douglas began more than 50 years ago,
conventional wisdom proclaimed that the Everglades were a vast, useless swamp to be drained and developed.
Underweight today is a project to restore the whole Everglades ecosystem. It's the largest
restoration effort ever undertaken in our history. And the effort owes its origins and inspiration
to Marjorie Stoneman Douglas. US Senator from Florida Bob Graham met Miss Douglas when he was a young
state legislator. He worked with her and was vigorously lobbied by her throughout his career
as legislator, governor of Florida, and United States Senator. How many people can say that they
gave the name to one of the environmental treasures of the world and then spent half of their
hundred plus years of life being the principal advocate for the protection of that treasure.
That is what Marjorie Stoneman Douglas was able to do with the Everglades. As a young woman in South
Florida, she became mesmerized by the Everglades as an area of mystery, specialness,
as a middle-aged person. She had the opportunity to write a book in a series on American rivers
and to the surprise of the publisher, she suggested that one of those rivers should be the
Everglades, a river of grass. No one had captured the essence of the Everglades in so few words
as Marjorie did. And then she devoted the rest of her life to seeing that that river of grass
was understood, was protected, was changed in its essential character from being a commodity
to be altered, to be rendered common and pedestrian, to appreciate it as a unique system,
which provided a variety of services to the people of South Florida while at the same time
defining the people of South Florida in much the same way as the Rockies to find the people of Colorado.
That was US Senator Bob Graham from Florida. Ms. Douglas was extremely effective as an advocate.
Joe Pogger was her personal assistant for 20 years and also served as Executive Director of the
Friends of the Everglades Organization from 1975 to 1994. He comments on a characteristic which
she had in abundance. The woman was afraid of nothing in no one. She would stand up to the biggest
big shot and tell them to their face exactly what she thought was right. She didn't do it to be
mean. She did it to set the record straight. She was trained as a reporter by her father and she had
some very strong Yankee notions coming from the New England area before she arrived in Florida in
1916. She is this rugged individualistic American with tell governors presidents. Anyone you could
think of exactly what was needed at that time. There was a time when they had named a building in
Tallahassee, Florida, our capital for Marjorie. It was to be the natural resources building and they
put a picnic together and invited her to go and we attended. After they dedicated the thing and
the ribbon was cut. A plaque was unveiled with Marjorie's likeness on it. To be mounted on the
building, Marjorie took the microphone and said, well, I thank you very much but I hope because
your name the building for me, you don't expect me to agree with everything you have to say.
Ms. Douglas exhibited that courage time after time when she took on the sugar industry,
which she charged was polluting and destroying the Everglades through drainage and fertilizing
pesticide runoff. Another target was the US Army Corps of Engineers, which was responsible for the
dyke and draining of much of the Great Swamp. A change of thinking in public policy brought out by
Ms. Douglas's advocacy caused the Clinton administration to undertake a restoration of the
Everglades as a major goal. This involves land acquisition and the Corps of Engineers now removing
many of the dykes and drainage canals that originally constructed. The objective is to restore the
flow of water across the Everglades that nourishes the sea of grass as well as the aquifers that
Southeast Florida cities need for drinking water. Rocks Salt is executive director of the South Florida
ecosystem restoration task force. The group was established by Congress in 1996 to coordinate state
federal tribal and local government efforts to restore the Everglades and South Florida ecosystem.
He says over 500 million dollars has been committed so far and some wildlife populations are showing
improvement. Clearly the biggest thing, the thing that will give the biggest payoff in terms of
restoring the Everglades is getting the water right. A second one that we haven't talked about,
even if you get the water right perfectly, the Everglades will still be doomed if Florida doesn't
come to grips with the urban growth, suburban sprawl out into the Everglades, out into the natural
areas. So the two main pieces are water and growth management and both of those are vital if we're
to succeed. If birds and other wildlife do come back and strengthen the Everglades and the water
shortages in South Florida are alleviated, we can thank Marjorie Stoneman Douglas who taught us that
the ecological health of South Florida depends on the sea of grass and who also mobilized the
political will to save it.
This is the Environment Show and I'm Peter Burley. Coming up next we go to Tennessee and Alaska.
The Environment Show is a national production it's made possible by the W. Alton Jones Foundation,
the Turner Foundation, the JM Kaplan Fund, the Oliver S. and Jenny Ardonelson Charitable Trust,
the William Bingham Foundation, and Heming's Motor Doors, the monthly Bible of the
Collector Car Hobby, 1-800-C-A-R-H-E-R-E.
The Environment Show would like to hear from you. Our toll-free comment line number is 1-888-49-Green.
You can email us at green at WAMC.org. That's green at WAMC.org.
I'm Linda Anderson and this is Ear to the Ground with stories about people
affecting change in the environment. This week a rural citizens organization working for social
economic as well as environmental justice.
Recognizing the dignity and rights of all people, save our Comberland mountains or Sockham,
headquartered in Lake City, Tennessee, works across lines of race, age, and income to create a
common voice dedicated to protecting the rights of and seeking improvements to mostly rural communities
in eastern and mid-land Tennessee. Sockham's concerns extend beyond the environment and incorporate
issues of social and economic justice. According to Sockham President Glenn Barton,
the organization began in 1972 over the issue of taxing. 60% of the land at the time Barton says
was owned by outside corporations that only paid 15% of the taxes. Most of these corporations
were coal companies and Sockham persuaded the state legislature to adopt a coal severance tax
to provide millions of dollars for roads and schools in coal-producing counties.
Next Barton says Sockham fought for a host of strip mining laws.
At the time they started there was no issue, no laws at all or rules governing strip mining.
They could just come in and mine wherever they owned and if the own mineral rights under your
property come in without your permission and mine it. Now thanks to Sockham, a surface rights law
protects landowners from having their land strip mine. Economic issues and tax issues all overlap
with the environment Barton says and points to the group's latest fight against chipmills.
We seem to have a lot of chipmills moving into the area and clear-cutting thousands of acres
of land and chipping up the hardwood for pulp and then setting it back in the
lines to keep providing pulp wood and if that goes on long enough, right, well,
ruin the timber industry, there won't be anything left except pulp.
Chipmilling itself employs very few Barton ads. A few people come in and grade some roads,
then he says huge equipment is brought in to literally gobble the trees into chips,
which are then sent mostly to Japan to be used in creating chipboard. Aside from robbing the
timber industry, he believes there are many negative consequences to clear-cutting the hardwood
forest. Lots of times pollute streams and if you cut your hardwood but also the
texture wild life, a lot of our wild life depend on the acres and other masters produced
with the hardwoods and there's not much food for wild life produced by these plant plantations.
Sockham Barton continues has established a timbering committee to coordinate research,
member education and document timbering problems in the state and write legislation for a future
forest practices act. With nine chapters operating in different counties,
Save Our Cumberland Mountains takes on lots of issues Glenn Barton says that make living in his
part of the world healthier. With ear to the ground, I'm Linda Anderson.
In now it's time for the Earth calendar. We have been proclaiming the arrival of spring on
the Environment Show for months now as rising temperatures have swept northward from Florida
and the Rio Grande. And while summer has begun in much of the country, it really is spring now
in Point Barrow, Alaska, the northernmost place in the United States. Point Barrow sticks into the
Arctic Ocean with a Chuck Chi and the Beaufort Seas meat. We know it's spring there because we just
spoke with Craig George, a biologist working for the Department of Wildlife Management of the
Alaska North Slope Burrow. He reported that it was sunny, wind was blowing at 30 knots,
and it had warmed up to 20 degrees Fahrenheit. Marking the arrival of the Arctic Spring and Point
Barrow is the passage of bowhead whales on their trip north and east from wintering areas in the
barring sea to summer waters in the Canadian Beaufort Sea. Craig George says he goes out to the
edge of the sea ice to count them as they pass and in some years he has seen as many as 3,500.
They're very impressive, very slow moving, very graceful animals and they come to the surface and
they blow about seven times and then they'll make a deep dive and go down for 10 to 15 minutes or so
and resurface and go through this surface series of rolls again and blow each time they break the
water. George says bowheads weigh 60 to 80 tons at our jet black except where they bear scars which
turn out to be white. Flux are 20 feet long and their huge heads extend a third of the length of
their body. They're beginning to calf now and a newborn weighs a ton at birth.
It's always exciting to see them migrating through. I think one of the most impressive things is they
have this big bow shape head, you know the the rostral bones are arched up in a bow like structure
hence the name bowhead and they use that to break through sea ice to breathe and on a few
occasions we've seen them going under the sea ice. Well you can't see them under the sea ice but
they've been migrating underneath and they bust up through it and they just crack that ice enough
that separate the ice and breathe through it. Well counting off barrel Alaska at this time of
year is a rich experience. Besides bowheads George says he sees polar bears sometimes they're too
close for comfort. He sees sea birds including about a half million iters thousands of beluga whales
as well as ring and bearded seals so if you missed it before it really is spring. We know because
the bowhead whales rounding the top of Alaska and heading into the Arctic Ocean for the summer
tell us so. You're listening to the Environment Show and I'm Peter Burley.
You're listening to the Environment Show and I'm Peter Burley. Still ahead. A new biodegradable
packaging material for your big Mac. It's made of starch and limestone and really does taste different
from the hamburger. We talk green about what is being done to stem global warming since the Kyoto
conference and an industry campaign to affect public policy. Then we go to the Chihuahua Desert where
we roast it noon and freeze at night but the colors are spectacular and nighttime is special. Stay with us.
President Clinton will soon be getting big Macs in a more environmentally friendly way. Early next
year a California based company will begin providing McDonald's with new packaging materials that
could revolutionize throw away food containers. The Environment Show Stephen Westcut has the story.
Earth shell corporation located in Santa Barbara says it has invented a new class of packaging
that will replace polystyrene foam and plastic coated paper products. For years landfills across the
US have been filling up with polystyrene foam cups that are used for 10 to 30 minutes then thrown away.
They spend years in landfills or polluting the oceans before bowed to grading. Earth shell began
development of its eco-friendly packaging about 15 years ago. Today company officials say they
have a product that breaks down quickly. All of our products we want to make sure can last for
24 hours or longer before they begin to break down if they've got a cup of coffee or a beverage of
some kind. But once you crack that surface once you crush the product and expose it to moisture
begins to break down. If you have it for instance in open water or you put it into a blender or you
put it into somewhere where it has access to a lot of moisture it's going to break down in a matter
of a couple of hours. If once you crush it and throw it away if you put it into the soil either
buried in your backyard or composting operation you're looking at two or three weeks before it breaks
That's Simon Hodson, Chief Executive Officer of Earth Shell. He says the name Earth Shell refers to
the natural materials used to make the product. We selected natural starches we can use either
potato starch or corn starch, rice starch, tapioca starch, wheat starch, any natural vegetable starch
we can use. It doesn't have to be modified or changed chemically in any way. The second
component that we use is natural ground limestone or sand. We actually use this abundant material
that's available throughout the world in every locality and we combine those two together to make
the basic structure. We then add a small amount about 5 to 10 percent of the product is a fiber
reinforcing. We use a natural salose fiber from any vegetable or plant source. It could be
bagasse which is the sugar cane waste product or canaphaapica which is banana fibers or we can
use just recycled office paper. But it all works together when we add a little bit of water
we create we form the product at above boiling temperatures so that the water that we add is
basically the foaming agent and creates a foam structure to the product so it's insulating like
polystyrene foam. Earth Shell currently has more than 50 U.S. patents and 20 international patents
with 115 more pending overseas. McDonald's has agreed to buy close to 2 billion big max sandwich
containers. In addition, earth shell plans to eventually market the product at the consumer level.
These would be disposable containers for home use or picnics. Some environmentalists are
praising earth shells material but not everyone liked the product in the beginning. Simon Hodson says
environmental defense fund officials had some concerns. One of their recommendations was that we
used reclaimed starches and that's what we're doing. We're using the waste material from french
fried plants or potato chip plants and that's the source of our starch. So we're taking a waste
product and turning it into something usable as our primary bonding component and that's
important for them and it's important for us to continue to refine our product to be the best
environmental product on the market. Earth Shell will make its eco-friendly packaging at a plant
in Baltimore, Maryland. Company officials plan to begin supplying McDonald's with the new
containers next spring. For the Environment Show, I'm Stephen Westcott.
We're talking green and I'm Peter Burley. Today we're talking about climate change and more
specifically what's happened since the United States agreed at the Kyoto Summit last December
to cut its greenhouse gas emissions by 7% by the year 2010. So far about 34 nations have signed
the agreement although I don't think any have actually ratified it and some leaders in the
United States Senate have said they won't even consider the treaty for ratification until some
of the developing nations like China are part of the pact. It's also been reported that industry
groups are kicking off a $5 million media campaign put together by the American Petroleum
Institute to build political opposition to ratification of the treaty. In fact, my understanding is that
once the senator is introducing legislation to prevent the administration from doing anything that
relates to implementation of the agreement itself. Many environmentalists say it makes sense to
start taking action right away both from an energy savings point of view and a conservation point
of view whether or not a Kyoto is ratified. So we'd like to know what you think. Our number is 1-888-49-green.
I have two guests with me today. One is Kelly Sims and she's with the Environmental Group
Ozone Action located in Washington. Also with us is Connie Holmes and she is chair of the Global
Climate Coalition which is an industry group that opposes ratification of the Kyoto Treaty.
She's also senior vice president of the National Mining Association which I presume
involves companies some of which mine coal. So in any event, Kelly Sims, let's start with you.
From an environmentalist point of view has anything happened since the Kyoto agreement or was it
simply a waste of time and effort? Well, certainly I don't think that the Kyoto agreement was a waste of
time. I think it gives us a framework for moving forward. The main message is that there's
been a lot of stalling by both industry groups like the Global Climate Coalition and also especially
the US Senate since Kyoto but I think importantly a lot of people are moving forward out in America
to start reducing emissions and really buying an insurance policy out that allows us to be risk
averse and start reducing emissions. It's sort of implementation without ratification.
And I think that a lot of people are moving out of the denial phase but there's a lot of rhetoric
inside the beltway in Washington. Let's hear the other perspective. Connie Holmes is chair of a broad
industry coalition which opposes ratification. What steps have your members and your group taken since
Kyoto? Well, our members begin to take steps to look at the climate change issue and to address
a downward reduction in emissions trends back in 1992 and 1993 when a number of our companies
began to support President Clinton and his climate action plan which was a purely voluntary plan on
the part of industry. In fact, since 1992 and 1993 I think that our companies have taken actions
that will reduce emissions by some hundred million tons annually and there's more to come. However,
we do frankly oppose ratification of the Kyoto Protocol. We think that the extremely short-term
targets that are included in the protocol are the wrong way to go. They're mandatory. They would
cost our economy a lot of money. They would cost us jobs and our competitive posture in the world
in the world. And frankly, we wouldn't have a great deal of effect once the Kyoto Protocol was
implemented. So Kelly Sims, you obviously take a somewhat different view of this. What I'm hearing
is that industry is going to do it anyway and we don't need to worry about ratification. Do you agree
with that? Well, I don't. Since the implementation of the Clinton Climate Change Action Plan,
our emissions have risen more than 8 percent and they're projected to be
17 percent by the year 2000, which under the initial international treaty, which was the
the framework convention on climate change, we're supposed to be back to 1990 levels and instead we're
going to be 17 percent above. So we certainly haven't done a very good job with voluntary measures.
And I think there's a lot to be said for getting a structure in place to help encourage emissions
reduction. So Connie, how do you say that there have been reductions voluntarily
agreed to or voluntarily put in place? How do those square with the numbers that Connie is telling us
that I'm sorry that Kelly is telling us that the emissions are going up? It is very true that
emissions since 1990 have risen. They have not risen as much as they would have had there not been
a lot of action on the part of industry. However, we have to look to see why those emissions
increased and why they're continuing to increase. One reason is population growth, which is a bit
faster than we had anticipated for a variety of reasons. But one of the most important reasons that
emissions continue to grow is the fact that our economy has been very strong as we all know,
the strongest in the world. And a strong economy has been made possible in great part by low-cost
energy. And that is the basic reason that our emissions have continued to increase our economic
growth, which does mean greater energy youth, although at more efficient levels. And of course,
our continued population growth. And so where do you come out then? Do we get to the levels that
the U.S. agreed to or is that simply not a realistic assumption? In 1992, we agreed to an aim that
was not a legally binding target. We agreed to try to reach 1990 levels by the year 2000.
And clearly that is not happening for the reasons that I outlined. However, many of the voluntary
programs that industry has been involved in are frankly just kicking in. It takes time to put new
capital stock online. It takes time to make investments and to introduce new technologies.
And as we look out over the future, we see a continuation of those voluntary actions. And we see
a continuation of energy efficiency. And other means that will mean our emissions are on a lower
trend than we would otherwise have. But let me just push you on that for a moment. Given the new
technology and whatever, where do you think we come out at 2010? Do we come out at anything like
the 7% reduction or do we just wind up at a higher number that may not be as high as it could have
been if something else had been happening? If we were to make the Kyoto Protocol target, we would
have to reduce energy consumption by between 35 and 40% from what the government projects us to use
by 2010. Clearly that would be a wrenching blow. We are talking about removing all of the energy used
by our entire transportation sector today. For example, we can't do that at no cost and we can't
do that without a great deal of economic harm. However, let me stop you there just because I think
this may be an issue of which there may not be agreement. Kelly, do you agree that you'd have to
reduce energy used to the extent that has been predicted and is that possible?
Well, her numbers are a little high. I mean, I'd like to just step back for just a second and say that
meanwhile we're sort of continuing to debate all of this. Meanwhile, the science is relentlessly
forthcoming. And since Kyoto, we've learned that the January and February of this year were the
warmest and wettest on record and that 1997 was the hottest ever and that nine of the past 11
years have been the warmest on record. So I really don't think we can afford to just rely on
voluntary measures. But to get to the point of about the economic cost, I think that we're actually
really risking US competitiveness by not ratifying Kyoto and not moving forward to maximise our
energy efficiency. I think that we've seen countless studies that have shown that if you
maximise efficiency, it's good for the economy. Most of our trade and goods and services go to
technologies that are in manufacturing a low energy. And I think we can do it. I mean, we haven't
even tried. And I think my main message here is we've got to start. We've got to find out
what works and what doesn't. If we wait until 2010, we're going to be in exactly the same situation
that we are right now, realising we've missed the voluntary aim of the framework convention on climate
change and will be there in 2010 and say, whoops, we missed the Kyoto target. And it was because we didn't try.
Let me ask you folks. I would totally disagree that we're not trying because effort has gone on.
Is that pointed out since 1992? Okay, let's assume that. Let me ask you both something. One of the
things that everybody is trying to do is to influence how people think about this, whether it be educating
them or propagandising them or whatever. It depends where you are because everybody accuses everybody
of everything else. The global climate change coalition has been alleged to be part of this major
media effort. I think I mentioned earlier, $5 million worth to convince the public that we don't
need to ratify Kyoto. Is that going on? Is that a key part of the... Well, I'm not quite sure what
you're talking about. So I would have to say the global climate coalition certainly is involved in
educating the public and educating the Congress and in our point of view, fortunately, we're in
America, which is a free country and we can do just exactly that. We do not at this point have a
major media campaign going on. We are merely continuing our efforts to educate and to tell people
about the Kyoto Protocol and about the better way to go, which is longer term and which is voluntary.
Now, I gather though, there are subdefections in your own ranks. My understanding is that
Shell and British petroleum in particular have either withdrawn or is saying that they think
we should be taking a somewhat different view than the coalition with respect to this issue.
Is that happening? We have many companies with many different points of view and DP and Shell
do have a different point of view on some aspects of the Kyoto Protocol. They're going to be
involved with left-to-college industry, but have left the coalition. In Washington, there are
companies that go in and out of associations and coalitions all the time for various reasons.
Again, looking at the environmental side, Kelly is the environmental community pretty much
together on this one or not? Absolutely. I think the environmental community would like us to be
doing a lot more, but certainly, I don't know any environmental group that doesn't support the
ratification of this protocol. I point out that there are a lot of businesses that are moving
forward. Last week, a new coalition was announced with, I think, 15 businesses that ran full page
ads and the New York Times Wall Street Journal, Washington Post announcing that they thought that
climate change was a serious issue and they were going to stand up to the challenge and work to do
something about it. Is that a variance conny with what the majority of your members are saying?
Absolutely. No, it's not. We have said for several years, our members share concerns about climate
change and about the possible changes to the climate system and our members are doing something
about it. Where we differ is the fact that we do not believe in mandatory targets and time
tables. We don't think that they're the way to go, especially when there is short term as they are in
Kyoto. We've got just a little bit of time and let me clear this one up. One of the shell people
was quoted as saying they were concerned about what looked like a tobacco industry like the
Nile of the issue, which some of their or some of his industrial colleagues were taking. Is that a
problem for your coalition or are there people that are saying, hey, we're beginning to sound like
the tobacco industry or is it so good? I don't think that industry has ever been in, as you say,
a quote state of denial. We have always said that we share the concerns and that we believe the
right way to go is more scientific research. We need to find out the answer with more certainty
about the cause, if indeed there is climate change, why it would be and what can be done about it.
We have long advocated and participated in new technology developments. We're, they came
the and a group of industries that believe in action. Okay, Kelly, we've just got 30 seconds left.
The question of cause, is that, does that need more research? Is Connie a surge? We have never,
ever on any other environmental issue had the overwhelming amount of information and synthesis by
the scientific community that we have on this issue. I mean, there's just no doubt. Okay, I'm afraid
our time is up. I appreciate talking with both of you. We've been talking about climate change and
the Kyoto agreement. If you have comments, give us a call. Our number is 1-888-49-Green. We've been
talking with Kelly Sims from ozone action and Connie Holmes from the Global Climate Coalition.
Again, our number is 1-888-49-Green. We've been talking green and I'm Peter Burley.
You can hear the environment show anytime on your personal computer. Go to our website
www.enn.com-slash-envshow. That's www.enn.com-slash-env-show and click on Listen to the Environment Show.
We all have places that are special to us. For some it's a city street, for others
it's deep in the wilderness. For author Anne Zwingerm, it's the Chihuahuan Desert. In this portrait
of place Zwingerm reads from her book titled The Mysterious Lands, a naturalist explores the four
great deserts of the southwest. In the Chihuahuan Desert, the Great Horned Owl calls up the dawn
over and over a soft hoo hoo hoo hoo hoo. Ribbons of sound weaving through the fretwork of
mesquite branches. It is no longer night but not yet dawn. The hinging time when the starlight
that fell fresh and bright is gone, leaving only three stars in a huge triangle strung across the
sky. Finally, only Venus walks the evanescent twilight. Narrow clouds stripe the horizon,
pink violet and cream, a pusscafe of a sky. Over a cusp of rock one spot of color glows royal
rose, deepening and broadening, turning the pink stripe ready the cream to gold. The silhouettes of
the Chihuahuan Desert take on interior color but the mesquite branches hold jet black.
Forny zigzag branches drawn in India ink by a tense hand incapable of either a gentle curve
or a continuous straight line. I for one am glad to see the dawn. I am miserably cold
having been foolish enough to think that Big Ben National Park in Texas early March would be
reasonably warm. It isn't. Forty-five degrees isn't cold until it's all you've got.
When the sun fell behind the horizon last night, the air with no humidity to temper the drop
lost its heat quickly. During the day such low relative atmospheric humidity allows a high
percentage of sunlight to reach the ground. Unfiltered by atmosphere and unblocked by clouds,
the pollucid air allows almost 90 to 95 percent of available solar radiation to reach the desert
floor. By contrast in temperate zones humidity lowers that figure to between 40 and 60 percent.
Conversely, night air cools quickly in the desert, accounting for large diurnal swings of
temperature in the desert. More often than not, it's roasted noon and freeze at night.
But as if to make up for this discomfort, moonset was so spectacular that I forgot I was
a candidate for hypothermia. The moon delicately lowered itself to the mountain rim and poised there.
Its brilliant crescent balanced on the profile of theoret. Then it slid behind the rim
until only the tip of its horn remained as bright as a star. The remainder of the globe
lingered lit by earthshine, a darkly bright still glowing cratered moon, light from desert to moon,
and back to desert again. With the moon gone, the stars cascaded a light almost as bright
as full moon light, scintillating twins and dogs and hunters, red giants and white dwarfs,
roaring circles across the sky. I pull my yellow mug out of Susan's kitchen basket
and the clatter superimposes human sounds on the desert morning. Susan is my eldest daughter
and she gives me this camping trip to the Chihuahuan desert for my birthday. A gift wrapped up in
a desert dawn tied up with silken strings of pyroloxia song. Like this day, deserts are beginnings.
Perhaps because there are so many questions in a desert, questions are beginning.
Answers are endings and in the desert all the answers come in the form of more questions.
Desert beginnings are made up of fresh breeze flickering through the creasote branches,
opening cactus flowers, a rattlesnake ending its night hunting and a kangaroo mouse popping
into its warm burrow before sun up, a horn toad emerging to warm in the early sun,
a world full of anticipations and apprehensions, possibilities and potentials, quick shadows and
careful eyes. That was author Ann's Winger, reading from a book The Mysterious Lands,
a naturalist explores the four great deserts of the southwest. It's published by the University
of Arizona Press.
Thanks for being with us on this week's Environment Show. I'm Peter Burley.
If you can't tell the difference between the hamburger and the package and the blindfold taste test,
order a copy of the show, called 1-888-49 Green and ask for show number 439.
The Environment Show is a national production, Alan Shartak is executive producer,
Stephen Westcott is producer and Ray Graff is audio engineer. The Environment Show is made
possible by the W. W. Walton Jones Foundation, the Turner Foundation, the J. M. Kaplan Fund,
the Oliver S and Jenny Ardontis and Charitable Trust, the William Bingham Foundation and Heming's
motor news, the monthly Bible of the collector Carhabi, 1-800-CAR-HRE. Be good to the earth
and join us next week for the Environment Show.
CC BY-NC-SA 4.0